[r-t] Method ringing vs. change ringing

[Tim Barnes]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM, Alexander Holroyd <holroyd at math.ubc.ca>
wrote:

> There seems to be far more agreement than I dared to hope on these general
> principles.
>

While I like this concept and clearly a true round block can be defined
without any reference to methods or calls, the problem I see if we remove
the requirement for peals (and other lengths) to be made up of methods is
one of reporting.  Today a peal on Bell Board often includes details of the
composition used.  This is often by way of a link to a composition library
where you can see the methods, calls (and possibly stationary bells in
variable stage or variable cover) used.  The methods referenced in the
composition library are themselves often linked to an underlying method
library where you can see how the methods are classified, their falseness
groups, etc.  I think this performance reporting hierarchy is valuable to
ringing and it would be a shame to lose it without a good alternative.  If
Ander's QP with all the 4-bell runs (very impressive btw) is rung, I'd
prefer to see it described in terms of 6 spliced asymmetric methods that
are housed in a method library, as opposed to a long string of place
notation.

I view the main problem with the Decisions as being that you can compose a
true round block without being able to describe it in terms of methods,
calls and stationary bells, because the current Decisions include arbitrary
restrictions on what is allowed as a method (and the non-method block
solution to this was very inelegant to many).  In the polls we ran, the
majority agreed these restrictions on methods should be removed so that any
string of place notations can be a method.  In my mind, this is the better
solution - to unrestrict methods - than to say performances don't need to
be made up of methods.  However, I would agree that if it's not possible to
describe a performance in terms of methods, where methods are fixed
sequences of place notations, then delinking performances from methods may
be the right solution.  Dixon's would be a good example.  But I'd
prefer this delinking to be the exception rather than the rule, to be used
when there's no alternative.


On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com>
wrote:

> I think I have made good progress defining truth for variable stage
> performances.  You probably won't see a draft today as I have a busy day of
> actual paid work, but hopefully Saturday or Sunday ...
>

Looking forward to seeing these Richard.  What you've posted so far
seem excellent.

TJB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20150124/24b5376d/attachment-0004.html>